Path: Supernews!supernews.com!kudonet.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc Subject: Evul Book and The Comment (was Re: Kaaba Applesauce) Date: 27 May 1997 19:29:15 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 207 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: <5mg59r$269@kudo20.kudonet.com> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV) Xref: Supernews alt.magick.tyagi:12383 alt.magick:102840 talk.religion.misc:291546 49970521 AA1 Hail Satan! E6 Alexander Duncan/shri (shri@globalserve.net): #>>The esoteric interpretation of the LA of Thelema is paramount and should #>>be accepted by all. how can we accept it if we don't know what it is? explain this 'esoteric interpretation'. a method? a specific interpretation of the text, what? #>>the exoteric interpretation of the Book of the LA is forbidden. by whom? from whom? perhaps it doesn't apply to us. maybe you're mistaken about who we are. #>>It is not to myself that I refer, but to That with which I resonate. let us decide whether that seems true for us. if it doesn't, you'll understand our reaction. John Everall: #>SHOULD be accepted by all? Hmmn? And what is THE esoteric interpretation? #>Achad's until Crowley broke with him? Yours? #>Always loved that Surrealist quote: "It is forbidden to forbid"! shri #That's precisely my point! No specific dogma is enforced, but an #epistemological attitude: the esoteric orientation, the esoteric method #if you will. it appears that you haven't got the language completely nailed down. first it is "the esoteric interpretation of the LA of Thelema", then it is "the esoteric orientation/method" (of doing what? interpreting the Evul Book? of interpreting text concerning the Law of Thelema? something else which you're calling the "'LA' of Thelema"? please refine your expression methods. it is difficult to parse, thanks. #The TK's view of the Comment is this different than your own? does it matter what "the TK" thinks? if so, why? why don't you just speak for yourself? #is that the exoteric attitude, and therefore ALL exoteric interpretations, #are forbidden, you said this before above. you're restating yourself here. so everyone in the TK must agree with you on this point. still, forbidden by/to whom? #but that NO esoteric interpretations are forbidden. Mircea Eliade in #THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION observes that the esoteric method is #intrinsically synthetic, and leads to a greater homogeneity than #exotercism, despite the common sensical objection that esotericism #is subjectivism, and therefore divisive and sectarian. please propose an example of "exoteric" and comparative "esoteric" interpretation, describing how the methods differ from one another. #Incidentally, in my paper "The Problem of the Comment" I ask four #questions concerning the Comment, which my interpretation answers: here is the full text of "The Comment": $ Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. $ The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise $ to destroy this copy after the first reading. $ $ Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk $ and peril. These are most dire. $ $ Those who discuss the contents of this Book are $ to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence. $ $ All questions of the Law are to be decided only $ by appeal to my writings, each for himself. $ $ There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. $ $ Love is the law, love under will. $ $ The priest of the princes, $ $ Ankh-f-n-khonsu $ $ _The Law is For All_, Aleister Crowley, ed. Regardie, $ New Falcon Publications, 1991; pages preceding text. $ ______________________________________________________ with this in mind,... #1. Why did the Prophet, to whose authority we are referred in the #Comment, advocate the study of the Book of the Law, and actually predict #the advent of a genius who will REVERSE the meanings of the Book, if the #study of the Book of the Law is forbidden? the significance of 'forbidden' is at issue. typically, to describe a thing as 'forbidden' does not, literally, necessitate that the speaker is the one doing the forbidding. thus, if the Priest of the Princes relates to us that the study is so forbidden, this does not mean he is saying who forbids it or how he feels about it. he may be communicating what he has from an authority he regards as supreme. in this case we may not also accept that authority. he may be indicating how the orthodox or vulgar authorities regard the text in question. in this case we may wish to transgress such edicts. he may also be providing, indirectly, his own restriction to the reader. if so, then it is an indirect imperative which may imply only moderate restraint (that is, indicating the danger of the act but not necessarily that any authority will delegate repercussion for the act itself). you say that the Prophet advocated the study of the Evul Book. I would ask you to quote his text which does so advocate. then I would ask you to consider whether this text originates from the Priest of the Princes. for example, there are many who accept a diversity of origin in the names of the man we call "Aleister Crowley" ("To Mega Therion", "Ko Yuen", etc.). there are some who would even dissect _The Book of the Law_ and negate portions which are, sometimes even admitted by Crowley, his own internal dialogs. in some measure it was this I sought to explicate and exemplify in the creation of _The Booklet of the Law_. you ask why a forbidden thing might be recommended. given that the forbiddance is indirect and that the Priest of the Princes merely expresses the danger of study, following this with a restriction to appeal only to his texts (does _The Book of the Law_ constitute a text written by Ankh-f-n-Khonsu?; the title of the document does indicate that it was his pen) in matters of the Law (we may presume 'of Thelema'), then the obvious answer is that the Priest is recommending the value of doing a dangerous thing. he merely wishes us to note the dangers involved in entering into familiarity with the Law. #2. Why are there no Holy Books after 1911, other than the Comment? I have no idea. is there really some necessity for answering this? if so, why? what is the significance of the lack? if you can answer that, then perhaps I'll take the time to discover an explanation. #3. Why is the prohibition on study and discussion specific to the Book of #the Law, I don't think it was a prohibition, it was a description of dangerous acts whose performance are *required* to those who would decide questions of the Law of Thelema. that is, study of _The Book of the Law_ is simultaneously described as "forbidden" (because of the "risk and peril" which are not described) and required ("decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself"; does Ankh-f-n-Khonsu have *other writings*?). #if the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent heretical #dissension, as Crowley implies in MAGICK WITHOUT TEARS? presuming that your interpretation of Crowley is accurate (I looked on page 307, the only page I saw you reference in these posts, but did not find anything like what you claim in the above), then it would seem that it is the *dissension* which is the "risk and peril" mentioned by the Priest of the Princes, and that study and discussion of the scripture may lead *to* dissension as interpretation may vary. #4. How is the prohibition on study and discussion necessarily in #accordance with the True Will of Everyperson? it is not a prohibition, it is a prophylactic which one may not heed, in fact must not heed if one is to consider questions of the Law. if one is to ignore questions of the Law or let someone else (say, a priestly class) handle them for you, then study and discussion are not necessary and are best considered 'prohibited'. #ANY complete interpretation of the Comment must be able to answer these #questions. other questions that come to my mind: * why aren't the risk and peril described or at least hinted at within The Comment? what might these be? * who is the "all" that will shun those who discuss the contents of the Book? what if we don't *normally* shun "centres of pestilence"? shall we treat all centres of pestilence equally? * can "appeal to" some writings be undertaken without study or discussion of them? E6/6/6 tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) -- (emailed replies may be posted) ------- join the AMT syncretism!!! see http://www.abyss.com/tokus ---------- call: 408/2-666-SLUG!! AAK! - Authorities Against Knowledge ** Knowledge is an enslaving illusion.